The firm further contended that negligence per se, premised on an alleged violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, was infeasible as the FTCA does not provide a cause of action for negligence per se.
Regarding the breach of implied contract claim, Marshall & Melhorn argued that the plaintiffs had not proven the existence of a valid and enforceable contract obliging the law firm to safeguard client information. Thiel was criticized for failing to specify the consideration she provided to the firm in exchange for protecting her private data.
The breach of fiduciary duty claim faced a similar line of attack, with the firm questioning the ability of the plaintiffs to demonstrate the existence of such a duty.
Finally, Marshall & Melhorn asserted that unjust enrichment claims could not hold as they were built on “circular reasoning.” According to the firm, the plaintiffs’ argument that the law firm benefited from their private data was insufficient to prove unjust enrichment.
Silent Warriors
As of now, neither Hendrix nor Thiel has responded to requests for comment, while a representative for Marshall & Melhorn declined to provide any statement.
